Nicolai Mork v. Perry Russell, et al.

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided March 11, 2026·No. 3:21-cv-00077·Unknown

Opinion

ANNA HOLLAND EDWARDS 1 Colorado Bar No. 35811 RACHEL KENNEDY 2 Colorado Bar No. 54038 Holland, Holland Edwards, & Grossman, LLC 3 1437 N. High Street Denver, CO 80218 4 Phone: (303) 860-1331 anna@hheglaw.com 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff, pro hac vice 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 NICOLAI MORK, Case No. 3:21-cv-00077-MMD-CSD 9 Plaintiff, 10 ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEYS' FEES vs. COSTS, AND INTEREST 11 PERRY RUSSELL, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 Plaintiff, by and through counsel, proposes the following Order Granting Plaintiff Post- 14 15 Verdict Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Interest, in accordance with the Court’s February 5, 2026 16 Order (ECF 170): 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 On June 17, 2025, Plaintiff Nicolai Mork proceeded to trial on two Eighth Amendment 19 claims arising from his treatment at Stewart Conservation Camp, a Nevada Department of 20 Corrections facility. Following a three-day trial, the jury awarded Plaintiff $4,347,750.00 in 21 compensatory damages. ECF No. 131. The Court entered judgment in Plaintiff’s favor on June 22 23 20, 2025. ECF No. 133. 24 As the prevailing party, Plaintiff is entitled to to reasonable costs and post-judgment 25 interest. Additionally, for the reasons discussed during the February 5, 2026, hearing on 26 Defendants’ motions for post-trial relief and Plaintiff’s motion for costs, fees, and interest, 27 Plaintiff is also awarded one year pre-judgment interest and post-verdict attorneys’ fees. See ECF 139-143, 153-154, 158-159, 162, 165-167, 170. 1 2 II. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR COSTS IS GRANTED 3 Plaintiff seeks costs as detailed in ECF 139 at pp. 23-24. Plaintiff has expended an 4 additional $730.30 since ECF 139 was filed, as shown in Ex. 1. The costs sought are reasonable. 5 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Costs to date in the amount of $32,757.81 is GRANTED. 6 III. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR POST-VERDICT FEES IS GRANTED 7 The Court finds that the rates and hours sought by Plaintiff for post-verdict attorneys’ 8 fees, including for time spent responding to Defendants’ post-verdict motions and raising the 9 10 motion for attorneys’ fees, as detailed in Ex. 2 and Ex. 3, are reasonable and not subject to 11 reduction based on the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See Woods v. Carey, 722 F.3d 1177, 1184 12 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that the PLRA fee cap does not apply to fees incurred in defending a 13 judgment in favor of a prisoner on appeal). The Court notes that Plaintiff has exercised billing 14 judgment by voluntarily reducing fees in many instances where two or more attorneys 15 participated in the billed work, which further underscores the reasonableness of the lodestar 16 calculations. Plaintiff’s Motion for Post-Verdict Fees in the amount of $125,942.50, to date, is 17 18 GRANTED. 19 IV. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRE-JUDGMENT INTEREST IS GRANTED IN PART 20 The decision to award prejudgment interest “under federal law is a matter left to the 21 22 sound discretion of the trial court.” Purcell v. United States, 1 F.3d 932, 942–43 (9th Cir. 1993); 23 see also Western Pacific Fisheries v. SS President Grant, 730 F.2d 1280, 1288 (9th Cir.1984). 24 The Court declines to award pre-judgment interest for the time it took for the Complaint to be 25 screened and proceed through the mediation program, or for the generally expected timeline for 26 cases of this type. However, the Court finds Defendants’ discovery conduct in this matter 27 hearing in this matter, the Court finds that the balance of equities supports an award of one year 1 of prejudgment interest. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Prejudgment Interest is GRANTED 2 3 IN PART. Plaintiff is awarded prejudgment interest in the amount of $178,257.75. See ECF 139 4 at pp. 21-22 (discussing applicable T-Bill rate of 4.10%). 5 V. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST IS GRANTED 6 An award of post-judgment interest on a District Court judgment is mandatory and 7 accrues from the date the judgment is entered. 28 U.S.C. § 1961; see Air Separation Inc. v. 8 Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 45 F.3d 288, 289–90 (9th Cir.1995) (holding that post 9 10 judgment interest is mandatory, and noting that the “[f]ailure to award post judgment interest 11 would create an incentive for defendants to exploit the time value of money by frivolously 12 appealing or otherwise delaying payment.”). Interest should be awarded on the entire judgment, 13 including any pre-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees. Id. at 291. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 14 Motion for Post-Judgment Interest on the verdict, one year pre-judgment interest, and post- 15 verdict attorneys’ fees, in the amount of $136,384.99 and continuing to accrue at a rate of 16 $522.55/day, as detailed below, is GRANTED. See ECF 139 at pp. 22-23 (discussing applicable 17 18 T-Bill rate of 4.10%). 19 Post-Judgment Daily Interest Rate 20 (4.10%) 21 One Year Prejudgment Interest $ 178,257.75 $ 20.02 Verdict $ 4,347,750.00 $ 488.38 22 Post-Verdict Fees as of 3/9/26 (261 days) $ 125,942.50 $ 14.15 23 Post Judgment Interest as of 3/9/26 (261 days) $ 136,384.99 $ 522.55 24 25 VI. CONCLUSION 26 Plaintiff is hereby awarded $473,343.05 in fees, costs and interest, to date, on the verdict 27 1 of $4,347,750.00, calculated as follows: 9 HHEG costs $ 29,561.41 $2,794.40 ; $402.0 4 Post-Verdict Fees as of 3/9/26 (261 days) $ 125,942.50 5 One Year Prejudgment Interest $ 178,257.75 Post Judgment Interest as of 3/9/26 (261 days) $ 136,384.99 6 SABIE 8 || Post-judgment interest will continue to accrue at a rate of $522.55 per day until these amounts 9 || are paid. 10 Respectfully submitted this 9th day of March, 2026. 1 By: /s/ Rachel Kennedy 2 RACHEL KENNEDY, Colorado Bar No. 54038 Holland, Holland Edwards, & Grossman, LLC 13 1437 N. High Street Denver, CO 80218 14 rachel@hheglaw.com 15 Attorney for Plaintiff, pro hac vice 16 IT IS SO ORDERED 17 18 DATED this 11th day of March, 2026.

20 Miranda M. Du, U.S. District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Case 3:21-cv-00077-MMD-CSD MDOocRuKm CenOtS 1T7S8 Filed 03/11/26 Page 5 of 15

Total Costs Sought as of March 9, 2026 7/25/24 Thomas Flynn $ 2 ,000.00 11/15/24 Cert of Good Standing - Dan & Rachel $ 30.00 11/21/24 Veritext - Deposition Transcripts $ 2 ,361.65 12/19/24 Thomas Flynn $ 5 ,520.00 6/15/25 Trial Flights, VRBO $ 4,567.85 7/2/25 Kathy French - Trial Transcript $ 3,200.00 7/2/25 Veritext - Deposition Transcripts $ 7 31.25 7/14/25 Thomas Flynn - Trial Testimony $ 7 ,940.00 7/15/25 Trial Rental Car, Nick Hotel, Nick Flight $ 2 ,480.36 9/15/25 Ninth Circuit Admission $ 4 60.00 2/2/26 February 5, 2026 Hearing Transcript $ 2 70.30 Breeden & Associates Costs (ECF 139.6) $ 2 ,794.40 Nicolai Mork Costs (ECF 139) $ 4 02.00 $ 3 2,757.81 Case 3:21-cv-00077-MMD-CSD Document 178 Filed 03/11/26 Page 6 of 15 DATE TASK Anna Holland Brooke Thiele- Rachel Emma Richards Erica Edwards LaForest Kennedy Grossman 6/23/25 Communications with client 1 6/23/25 Call with Randy Gillmer re post verdict motions and negotiations 6/23/25 RK research fee petition 2 6/23/25 Download & save Doc. 126 0.1 6/23/25 Download & save Docs. 127, 128, 130, 0.2 131, 133 6/23/25 Call with counsel from Stewart v. Write off 0.5 Aranas case 6/23/25 Call with DAG 0.3 Write off 6/23/25 Prejudgment interest research 2 6/23/25 Calls with client, also 6/28, 7/2, 7/9, 0.8 6/24/25 Call with client 0.5 6/24/25 Draft shell of Fee Petition 0.5 6/24/25 Order Trial Transcript from Ms.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Nicolai Mork v. Perry Russell, et al., (D. Nev. 2026).

Nicolai Mork v. Perry Russell, et al. (Nicolai Mork v. Perry Russell, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related